Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. The REAL place where you and I differ is that having gone through law school myself, I and others like the lawyers at the ACLU realize that cases have "legal precedent" value.
The NAMBLA case was a third-party publisher liability case, where a child molestor claims he got the "ideas" and "methods" on how to rape a child from publications put out by NAMBLA.
Had the tort lawyers succeeded in this legal theory, it would have opened the door to lawsuits across the country that could effect anyone from fiction crime writers, to bookstore owners.... think of it as a version of "slippery slope," only imagine bookstores, publishers and authors spending countless hours and dollars defending suits left and right.
If they carried how-to texts on child abuse, they should haver to defend themselves. Even a lwayer should have enough of a sense of ethics to grasp that.
Quote:
Like I said, the implications were so much more than NAMBLA. It wasn't about their ABILITY to publish their garbage, it was about not being held accountable for the ACTIONS of others, and making sure OTHERS aren't caught in a similar legal dragnet.
Implications, my grass. Incitement is incitement. Unless groups like NAMBLA are held accountable for their filth, they will prosper and spawn imitators. Monkey see, monkey do. And you want to keep them supplied with bananas.
Quote:
Look at the lawsuit on the facts of the case, rather than just because NAMBLA is a bad organization. Then try to convince me that the guy who actually DID THE MOLESTATION would not have "but for" reading about it. Give me a break. Who is ultimately responsible? Is personal responsibility dead?
Not at all. Neither is the ability to tell right from wrong. And NAMBLA is wrong. Defending them is worse....
Quote:
Like I said, you really never READ the case, have you? It's a factually similar situation to the Paladin Press case in the early 90s where an assasins guide ("Hit Man") was published, and then some crazy actually went out and used the "guide" to actually kill someone. The ACLU filed an amicus brief in that case as well. Are you arguing that the ACLU is supportive of the assasin lifestyle?
It would not surprise me in the slightest. Think about the Virginia ACLU official whom saganista was so quick to defned, and who trafficked in child porn...
Quote:
Well, you've failed to show that there is a large "progressive" movement TO have a world where "adults bugger children." You've also failed to show that the ACLU, or any other legitimate group other than NAMBLA (which is a fringe group NOBODY takes seriously) advocate the "buggering" of children.
Oh? You seem to take NAMBLA and their freedom to publish and proselytize quite seriously. Otherwise, what is your post about?
Quote:
A disturbing trend, to be sure. Are you arguing that availability of abortions is to blame for the trend?
I was speaking of the future (read more carefully, counselor)... and where else could one more likely place the blame for millions of abortions except at the feet of their availability?
Quote:
What's wrong with that? I'm sure you were just SHOCKED and OUTRAGED as you parsed through every salacious, perverted, uncensored picture found on that website (the first 4 or 5 times at least, right? )
I found it disgusting. You didn't. QED.
Quote:
Again, the official "choice" philosophy is that abortion is to be legal, safe, and RARE. I'm actually anti-abortion personally, but would never make it illegal because I live in the real world where telling people, "NO" isn't enough.
Rare, huh? How many per year? How many since R v W? Get real.
Quote:
Buggering children, again, is advocated by maybe one group of miscreants. Hardly worth talking about, given the fact that they have less support and political favor than the mole rat protection lobby.
They have the support of the ACLU. And you, apparently...
Quote:
Sex street fairs should be none of your business, so long as nobody is forced to participate or see the goings-on at said fair that doesn't want to. If you never had the internet, that street fair would never have been "witnessed" by you. It seems, however, that you have at least the slightest curiosity to view sex street fair photos, otherwise you wouldn't have bothered to view and get all "outraged" about it. As if sex street fairs are held everyday across the country in front of elementary schools and retirement homes full of veterans.... or as if it's "somebody's" "goal" in life to make it so.
Public sex fairs are okay with you, huh? You're coo-coo, pal.
Quote:
Otherwise, it's just consensual adults having a bit of fun. No harm, no foul. I'm sure a gruesome and violent "civil war" re-enactment doesn't elicit the same moral outrage as recreational sex though, does it?
Red herring. No harm in public perversion? Bye-bye, trimmy.
Not at all. Neither is the ability to tell right from wrong. And NAMBLA is wrong. Defending them is worse....
People who are wrong have the right of free speech. If this were not the case, we would be hearing a good deal less from the right-wing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
It would not surprise me in the slightest. Think about the Virginia ACLU official whom saganista was so quick to defned, and who trafficked in child porn...
There is a sizable difference between possession and trafficking, you know. I did not defend his possession. I criticized your gratuitous insertion of the remark on the basis that it was not relevant to the topic at hand, and that you yourself knew nothing about this case, nor about the structure and operations of the ACLU of VA. Your only purpose was to smear.
People who are wrong have the right of free speech. If this were not the case, we would be hearing a good deal less from the right-wing.
There is a sizable difference between possession and trafficking, you know. I did not defend his possession. I criticized your gratuitous insertion of the remark on the basis that it was not relevant to the topic at hand, and that you yourself knew nothing about this case, nor about the structure and operations of the ACLU of VA. Your only purpose was to smear.
Right wing or left, I would enjoy hearing sagansita defend the victims of these monsters as vigorously as he defends the monsters.
And since when did you add mind reading to your character asset list. I did not any intent to smear in yeledefs remarks, only his observations which
appeared to me to be defending the real victims - the innocent children.
As far as the structure and operations of the ACLU, I met their surrogates
in juvenile court many times (aka: Legal Aid). They were hell bent on returning
the child to the parent who abused them and or sold them for profit to support their drug habits. Knowing a case on paper is real intelectual, knowing its impact on the people involved is something most intellectuals
seem to miss the point on.
person they love are going without the right to do that.. because of the fight...
People who have something against homosexuality should be promoting laws to make it illegal...
but instead now we have people who say... "that's fine.. they can do and be what they are but no way can they be married"
which is it? you are tolerant enough to not want laws regulating their sexual behavior.. yet when they wish to live their lives constructively in the context of a union under the law.. that's going too far?
isn't logical...
the only thing that is constant in life is change....
some of us handle it better than others...and I think that has a lot to do with how people form their outlooks on life and effecting their political and social views as well.
I think the section I highlighted in your post articulates exactly where the fault line is for most Americans, who in my opinion share my viewpoint on the matter. And although I've been told I hate and am a homophobe here already, here is what I see as the majority opinion. With a few notable exceptions (incest being one), I believe what adults do in the the privacy of their home is their business and government does not to be involved. When it finds it's way in to the streets, as in the disgusting pics yeladaf linked to of a man ejaculating out of a window and men urinating on each other and drinking it in public, that is very much a different story. Those people are pigs and society has every right to define public standards, which just about everywhere else but SF would not condone such foul behavior. But I digress..With regards to marriage, it is a unique institution but one in which the government has a right to define. Like a drivers license, I see no constitutional right for anyone to define who gets it or does it for themselves, rather it's a matter for elected officials to decide. What I do see as a constitutional issue (or civil rights issue if you will) is the benefits of marriage. Transfer of assets, power of attorney, those things.
There is a middle ground here that while may not be everything to everyone is a workable compromise. That is to leave marriage defined as a union between man and woman (who are not related (closely)) but to extend domestic partnership benefits to those who choose to register for them.
People who are wrong have the right of free speech. If this were not the case, we would be hearing a good deal less from the right-wing.
And the left. No danger of that, is there?
Quote:
There is a sizable difference between possession and trafficking, you know. I did not defend his possession. I criticized your gratuitous insertion of the remark on the basis that it was not relevant to the topic at hand, and that you yourself knew nothing about this case, nor about the structure and operations of the ACLU of VA. Your only purpose was to smear.
Smearing the defenders of pedophiles is good for the soul. Join me once in a while....
Thanks for stating your intent. I think I'll join you in improving my soul.
Welcome.
I hasten to add that it was NOT my intention to hijack a thread on the attempts by some to redefine the institution of marriage, and see it turn into a flame war concerning NAMBLA.
I simply find it inconceivable that so many otherwise intelligent people are so hot to open up "progressive" cans of worms -- and then express surprise at the vermicelli speading all over the floor...
Right wing or left, I would enjoy hearing sagansita defend the victims of these monsters as vigorously as he defends the monsters.
Why is it so difficult for people to understand the right to free speech? If you abhor it so much, there are countries which don't permit it.
If someone's wrong, we silence them? Interesting, since I can remember seeing more than a few posters on this board criticize members of political parties other than their own for wanting to silence those with differing viewpoints.
We really don't need to be headed in the same direction as Canada on this issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
